Undoubtedly, the ACLU and other left-wingers who don't believe the threat of Islamic terror is real will rejoice in today's Supreme Court decision. In a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that enemy combatants who have never set foot in the U.S. should be granted the full protection of the United States Constitution. This includes the right to Habeus Corpus, which will ensure that every detainee at Guantanamo gets their "day in court".

For those who recall the fiasco that was the Padilla case (and does anyone remember O.J. Simpson?), granting access to the U.S. courts will result in an endless parade of show trials where lawyers for the defendants will posture and preen in a bid to embarrass the American government. And even more damaging, the rules of evidence will compel the government to disclose classified information to the public that may include critical "sources and methods" of the intelligence agencies. The government will then have a stark choice: provide the information that might jeopardise sources and current operations, or let the prisoner walk. We already have evidence that several enemy combatants released from Guantanamo have returned to the fight against American soldiers. If you are interested in protecting the American public, what kind of choice is this?

The Boumediene decision is indefensible -- both as a matter of judicial and public policy. While the court traditionally follows stare decisis (or precedent) in its rulings, in this case the court specifically went against its prior ruling from 1950 in Johnson v. Eisentrager. In that case, the court specifically ruled that alien combatants had no right to Habeus Corpus. According to James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal, the reason for overturning Eisentrager was something of a technicality:

"The majority distinguished Guantanamo from the facility at issue in Eisentrager--a U.S.-administered prison in occupied Germany--on the ground that although the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base is technically on Cuban territory, America exercises "complete jurisdiction and control" over it. Thus, detainees have constitutional rights pursuant to today's ruling only if they are held at Guantanamo."

This, then, will be the final straw for Guantanamo, which both Barack Obama and John McCain have vowed to close in any event. But for the remaining 270 detainees there -- all hardened Al Qaeda extremists or other terrorists caught in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the circus is about to begin. How many of them will be released to fight another day? Justice Antonin Scalia, for one, believes that it will endanger American lives. In dissent he writes in Boumediene:

"[Today's decision] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. That consequence would be tolerable if necessary to preserve a time-honored legal principle vital to our constitutional Republic. But it is this Court's blatant abandonment of such a principle that produces the decision today."

The abandonment of the principle of precedence is hard to understand in this case -- particularly since the differences between Eisentrager and Boumediene are minute. This is a clear case of "legislating from the bench" -- the kind of judicial activism that is anathema to the strict constructionism that conservatives prefer from the Supreme Court. One can only conclude that the liberal justices on the court have a political statement to make -- that the constitutional protections for enemies caught in battle are more important than the security interests of the nation. Of course, most liberals don't believe there is a real and present security threat -- despite that fact that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, is one of the first detainees to benefit from his "Perry Mason" moment.

In many ways, this decision shows the vital importance of the Supreme Court in the coming election. For all the discussion in this blog and others as to the issue of foreign policy and economic experience, the most lasting impact of the next presidency will undoubtedly be who he picks to replace Justice John Paul Stevens -- the next likely justice to retire. While Justice Kennedy provided the critical fifth vote, the four liberals -- Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg and Stevens made up the solid block in favor of this decision. Stevens, appointed to the bench by Gerald Ford, is 88 years old and will likely retire during the next presidential term. His replacement will determine the direction of the court for many years to come.

We all know the kind of justices Barack Obama will appoint -- those in the Ginsberg/Souter/Scalia/Stevens mold. John McCain is on record as wanting to appoint justices more in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both of whom joined the minority in opposing the decision in Boumediene.

Once again, a clear choice come November.

America, if you think things are bad now, just wait until 2009 if Barack Obama becomes president. You can take his recent comments on the price of gas to the bank: The Democrat nominee actually believes that the high price of gas is a good thing -- because it will force all you SUV-driving religious clingers in the heartland to buy a Prius and go green. Nothing like $8-a-gallon gas to change behavior. In Obama's view of the world, the less you drive the better, because it will lower greenhouse gas emissions and teach those big, bad oil barons that they better think of a new way to gouge us -- like cellulose ethanol or biofuel from kitchen grease. Nevermind that those hurt the most by this increase in gas prices will be that hardworking single mother who commutes 50 miles to work every day for her $35,000 a year job. Wait, isn't she a member of the Democrat's core voting base?

Obamanomics will strangle the economy and put us deep into a recession. Because in addition to his regressive tax policy, he'll burden the economy with more spending and more regulation. It has been proven over and over again that you can't tax and spend your way out of an economic slowdown -- it just doesn't work. In fact, over the long run, higher taxes never lead to greater economic growth. Higher taxes are a disincentive to work more, earn more and invest more. Why is that basic human nature so difficult for Democrats to understand? Is it because they always believe that the ends -- providing for the poor, the needy and the unemployed -- is more important that taking care of those who actually work and pay the taxes?

A recent editorial by the Investors Business Daily seems to reinforce this latter view:

"Make no mistake: This tax hike is gargantuan. Simply by not making Bush’s tax cuts permanent, taxes will rise by a minimum of $2.8 trillion between now and 2018.”

The IBD says that if the tax cuts are allowed to expire in 2010:

-- Spending will rise by half a trillion dollars over the next five years. And the Democrats will pay for it by raising taxes by $683 billion — “the biggest such increase ever.”

-- About 48 million married couples — “the heart of the middle class that Democrats say they want to help” — will see an average annual tax increase of $3,007.

-- The tax bill for the elderly will rise $2,181 a year on average.

-- A single parent with two children earning $30,000 a year will see a tax hike of $1,600.

-- A family of four earning $50,000 a year will be hit with a tax increase of 191 percent.

-- The 2009 budget for the first time ever spends $1 trillion on discretionary items — non-defense, non-entitlement.

“This is a foretaste of future fiscal recklessness under a Barack Obama presidency (he voted for the bill),” the IBD observes.

Noting that the budget would weaken the economy and kill job growth, the IBD concludes: “This is supply-side economics in reverse — creating massive disincentives to work, save and invest, and shrinking the pie.”

So, the Democrats and Obama say they are for the "little guy" and want to end the "tax cuts for the rich". Never mind that the "rich" include the millions of small businesses out there that make more than $250,000 per year and employ (literally) tens-of-millions of people. Ending the Bush tax cuts will increase taxes in all income brackets, will create a disincentive for investment and will reinstate a confiscatory "death tax" of 55% on assets in excess of $1 million. Do people with assets in excess of $1 million deserve to have 55 cents of every additional dollar returned back to the government -- which has already taxed that dollar when it was earned? Is that fair in any way?

It is if you are Barack Obama, who is happy to take your money so he can give it to someone he deems more needy. Classic redistributive economic policy that any socialist would be proud of.

One of the first speeches that Barack Obama gave after becoming the presumptive nominee of the Democrat Party was to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In this speech, delivered on June 4, 2008, he began the difficult transformation of going from left-wing dove to progressive hawk. It is axiomatic that every nominee of both parties plays to their partisan base in the primaries and then tacks back to the "center" for the general election. In the case of Barack Obama, who has had tremendous success pandering to the lefty's of his party, this tack will have to be something close to a sharp right turn.

It will be exceedingly difficult for Obama to do -- something that was made abundantly clear in his speech to AIPAC. For Obama to be a credible Commander in Chief that is interested in protecting America's interests in the Middle East, he will have to become a close friend and abiding ally of Israel. Why? Because even with the nascent democracy in Iraq, Israel remains both the only thriving capitalist democracy in the Arab world and our only true politico-military ally. The U.S.-Israel alliance has been the cornerstone of our Mid East foreign policy since the late 1960s, and American Jews remain a powerful (if reliably Democrat) voting block. The speech to AIPAC was Obama's chance to show his bona fides in his support for Israel. Not surprisingly, the speech centered on the growing threat of Iran in the region.

Why Iran? Because Iran remains the single most pressing security threat to both Israel and Iraq. The Mullahs have been proactively building a nuclear bomb and the missile technology to deliver it, and with a range that is capable of striking both Baghdad and Jerusalem. They have been sending weapons into Iraq with impunity, and those weapons have been used to kill both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians with lethal effectiveness. They actively support Hezbollah which has been fighting the Israeli army along the Lebanon border and which has been indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel. In short, Iran -- even without nuclear weapons -- is fighting an active war against both the U.S. and Israel in the region.

So, how did Obama do at AIPAC? If you are a fan of more diplomacy, Obama did very well indeed. Obama began with a strong statement that sounded well, hawkish:

"The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race, and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat".

So far, so good. Unfortunately, what followed this was plenty of grist for the idealists in the audience. Obama's approach to this "grave" threat of Iran is -- you guessed it -- an "aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions":

"We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. (I am) willing to lead a tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if -- and only if -- it can advance the interests of the United States."

And what would Obama say to the "appropriate Iranian leader"? He'd apparently offer up (again) the same carrots that the Bush Administration and the Europeans have been dangling for the past four years: lifting of sanctions and political and economic integration with the international community.

Has Barack Obama been asleep for the past few decades? Yes, I know, sitting in the Reverend Wright's church for 20 years can certainly numb the mind. But this is an incredibly naive response and a testament to his inexperience. He just -- to coin a phrase -- "doesn't get it". The Iranian regime is a revolutionary government. By definition revolutionary regimes don't seek accommodation with the existing order, they seek its destruction. The Mullahs in Iran seek not just the destruction of Israel but a return to the caliphate -- an Islamic social and political order that is 100% antithetical to the existing "international community". It is, thus, no surprise that the Iranian's are not interested in all the myriad concessions that the Europeans and Condoleeza Rice have been offering. What they are seeking isn't negotiable.

Of course, Obama has his own non-negotiables, namely in leaving Iraq as quickly as possible -- even in the face of the obvious success of the surge, the recent declaration by CIA Director Hayden that we are near a "near strategic defeat of Al Qaeda there, and the growing clout of the Maliki government. At AIPAC, Obama again called for the "responsible phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq", though he neglected to explain just how this would help Israel. Presumably, in Obama's view of the world, the retreat from Iraq would somehow signal the Iranians that we really "mean business" and represent a force to be reckoned with. Huh? As Mathew Continetti writes in the Weekly Standard, this policy would

"Erase the security and political gains the United States and its Iraqi allies have made in the last 18 months. It would lead to more violence, not less, and to a weaker Iraqi government, not a stronger one. It would breathe new life into the radicals -- many sponsored by the Iranian regime -- who seek a failed state in Iraq. And Tehran would quickly move to fill any power vacuum that the Americans left behind in Iraq."

Beyond the obvious fact that this would hurt America and help Iran, it would actually be devastating to Israel. I know that this position is not "en vogue" among American Jews, who lean heavily left, but the best thing that America could do to protect and support Israel is to win decisively in Iraq. The total defeat of Al Qaeda and of the radical Shiite forces there, the expulsion of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the presence of a stable democracy in the heart of the Middle East -- are all part and parcel to Israel's security. In contrast, our retreat and ultimate defeat in Iraq -- and the attendant fall of the Iraqi government -- will lead to a devastating vacuum in the region that will further threaten Israel.

American Jews should understand clearly this: If you support Israel, you should be wary of a candidate pushing the tired line of diplomacy with a regime that doesn't negotiate. And you need to vote for victory in Iraq in November.

On Saturday, twenty years on, Barack Obama finally made a break with his church and Jeremiah Wright. The decision to leave the Trinity Church came, fittingly, after a visiting pastor, Michael Pfleger, used his sermon to denounce Hillary Clinton as a "white elitist" who felt entitled to the presidential nomination. Pfleger, who himself is white, is another radical leftist preacher who routinely spews hate speech from the pulpit. Here's his sermon from the pulpit at Obama's church recently: